Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant amendment received on 06/23/2026:
Amendments of Claims 1, 3 and 8 to 11 are acknowledged.
Amendments to the Specification are acknowledged.
Replacement sheets for Figures 1 to 5 are acknowledged.
The Examiner notes that an annotated copy of the claims indicating the amended text was not provided. Under USPTO practice per 37 CFR § 1.121, an amendment to claims does not require a separate "annotated copy" alongside the response, but rather must completely rewrite any amended claim showing changes (additions underlined, deletions crossed out) within a single complete listing of all pending and withdrawn claims. The Examiner appreciates the “clean copy”, but the amendment showing the changes is required for the Examiner to easily find and understand what was changed to prevent missing information and in the future shall be provided.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/20/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabrielsen (US 2008/0092488) in view of Mondini (US 2024/0051695).
Regarding Claims 1 to 3:
Gabrielsen discloses a packaging system for end-of-line box processing (Figure 3, system 10),
the system comprising: two or more end-of-line box processing stations each configured to perform one or more end-of-line box processing operations (Figure 3, loading stations 12, dunnage dispensing stations 14 and container closing station 102 are some of the stations),
the two or more end-of-line box processing stations including a supply of boxes in a box delivery station, a product delivery station where objects to be shipped are placed in a box, and a sensor for detecting characteristics of the box and the objects in the box (Figure 3, loading station 12 includes a container erector 32 for containers 20 from flat blanks 34 that will be considered the supply of boxes in a box delivery station, and a product delivery station where articles 16 to be shipped are placed in containers 20, that will be considered the boxes, volume scanner 72 of void determination device 70 will be considered the sensor and, Paragraph 0062, a separate sensor can be provided to measure the length of the container),
a conveyor configured to transport the box from the product delivery station to selected ones of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations (Figures 2 and 3, transport network 24 will be considered the conveyor); and a controller in operable communication with the sensor and the conveyor (Figure 3, controller 26), the controller configured to, based, at least in part, on information from the sensor, selectively direct the conveyor to transport the box from the product delivery station to other selected ones of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations (Paragraph 0113 controller 26 determines whether the loaded container 20 is suitable for automatic dunnage insertion as a function of the data obtained at intermediate station 22a. If the loaded container 20 is not suitable for automatic dunnage insertion, for example, if the contents of the container 20 are above the top of the container 20, the container 20 is moved to diverter line 68aa), the sensing and the insertion of dunnage are made while the box is on the conveyor.
Gabrielsen does not disclose the conveyor being an autonomous vehicle.
Mondini teaches a planar motor conveyor comprising a plurality of magnetic shuttles (Figure 5, planar motor conveyor 3, magnetic shuttles 4) the magnetic shuttles, are autonomous vehicles, moving independently but in a coordinated way and short of any additional limitation can be considered autonomous mobile robots, transport a container to receive objects to be shipped (Figure 5, products 1 on supports 2) from a product delivery station to a plurality of processing stations (Figure 5, paragraph 0134, from unloading station 16 to outfeed station 22 or ejection station 30, third electronic device 29 inspects the product 1 and the support 2 loaded onto each magnetic shuttle 4 and can be considered a sensing station, or if the third electronic device 29 detects an incomplete load back to the outfeed station) as a way to place individual delicate products in containers to avoid damage by the use of manipulators and the individual shuttles can be individually reoriented to receive a product on a container which allows precise positioning even of products with irregular shape or which do not have dimensional stability; allowing regular and repeatable positioning even of products which are fed in an irregular way.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Gabrielsen the teachings of Mondini and replace the transport network for a planar conveyor with magnetic shuttles that allow for individual control for each box to be individually reoriented to receive a product which allows precise positioning even of products with irregular shape or which do not have dimensional stability; allowing regular and repeatable positioning even of products which are fed in an irregular way without the need of robotic or human manipulation; while at the same time allowing to perform the end-of-line box processing operations while the box is onboard the autonomous mobile robot.
Regarding Claim 4:
Gabrielsen discloses the sensor is configured to detect at least one characteristic of the box, including at least one of a height dimension, a width dimension, and a depth dimension (Paragraph 0057, 0062, height sensor 82 for providing an output representative of a height of a container 20, a width sensor 84 for providing an output representative of a width of the container 20, a separate sensor can be provided to measure the length of the container).
Regarding Claim 5:
Gabrielsen discloses wherein the at least one detected characteristic includes a nonconformant indicator of the box (Paragraph 0076, the void determination station 70 also can include one or more sensors used to determine whether the container is suitable for receipt of dunnage, i.e., whether a non-conforming fault condition exists).
Regarding Claim 6:
The modified invention of Gabrielsen discloses wherein the directing step includes instructions to bypass at least one end-of-line box processing station (Paragraphs 0076 to 0078, the void determination station 70 also can include one or more sensors used to determine whether the container is suitable for receipt of dunnage, i.e., whether a non-conforming fault condition exist; upon detecting one of these or other fault conditions where a container falls outside acceptable operating criteria, the controller 26 can automatically route the container for special processing by an operator; the controller 24, can also instruct the dispensing stations 14 to allow the container to pass through the dispensing station 14 without inserting dunnage into the container 20, both conditions can be considering as bypassing a box processing station).
As already discussed for Claim 1, Gabrielsen was modified by the teachings of Mondini to replace the conveyor for a planar motor conveyor comprising a plurality of magnetic shuttles that are considered autonomous vehicles to autonomously transport the box.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Gabrielsen the teachings of Mondini and have the controller configured to direct the direct the autonomous vehicle to autonomously transport the box along a route that bypasses at least one of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations.
Regarding Claim 7:
Gabrielsen discloses that at least one of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations is automated (Paragraph 0048, 0063, loading station 12 automatically converts a box blank into a box, approximate void volume would on average be accurate enough to allow automatic filling of the void from the dunnage dispensing equipment).
Regarding Claim 8:
Gabrielsen discloses that the at least one of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations includes a first box processing station and a second box processing station disposed remote from the first processing station so that the automated vehicle can be directed to a selected one of the first box processing station and the second box processing station but not the other one of the first box processing station and the second box processing station (Figure 2, dunnage dispenser 52, one of the end-of-line box processing stations, includes dunnage dispensing stations 14a, 14b, 14c, and 14, that are considered first and second end-of-line box processing stations and the boxes are directed by the controller 26 to a selected one of them). As discussed for Claim 1, Gabrielsen was modified to replace the transport network with a planar conveyor with magnetic shuttles, that are “automated vehicles”; therefore, the automated vehicle can be directed to a selected one of either the first box processing station or the second box processing station but not both the first box processing station and the second box processing station.
Regarding Claim 9:
Gabrielsen discloses that the first box processing station and the second box processing station perform a same end-of-line box processing operation (Figure 2, if dispensing stations 14a, 14b are considered first and second end-of-line box processing stations they both perform the same automated dunnage dispensing operation).
Regarding Claim 10:
Gabrielsen discloses that the first box processing station and the second box processing station perform a different end-of-line box processing operation (Figure 2, on dunnage dispenser 52 if dispensing stations 14a and 14d are considered first and second end-of-line box processing stations they both perform different operations, 14a performs automated dunnage dispensing, while 14d is a diversion station where the non-conforming condition can be resolved. dunnage can be placed in the container at the diversion station 14d or the container be rerouted outside the transport network).
Regarding Claims 11 to 13:
Gabrielsen discloses an end-of-line box processing method, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a packaging system having two or more end-of-line box processing stations (Figure 3, system 10) and a conveying system configured to move a container between selected ones of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations, the end-of-line box processing stations including a product delivery station where objects to be shipped are placed in the container for shipment (Figures 2 and 3, transport network 24 will be considered the conveying system, loading station 12 will be considered a delivery station where products 16 are placed on container 20);
loading a container on the conveying system to transport the container to selective ones of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations (Figure 3 shows containers 20 on transport network 24 towards dunnage dispensing stations 14 and container closing station 102);
after the objects to be shipped are placed in the container, scanning the container to detect characteristics of the container and the objects in the container (Figure 3, paragraph 0050, container 20 are passed by device 70); and directing the automated vehicle to transport the container on a route from the product delivery station to selective ones of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations based, at least in part, on the detected characteristic information (Paragraph 0113 controller 26 determines whether the loaded container 20 is suitable for automatic dunnage insertion as a function of the data obtained at intermediate station 22a. If the loaded container 20 is not suitable for automatic dunnage insertion, for example, if the contents of the container 20 are above the top of the container 20, the container 20 is moved to diverter line 68aa).
Gabrielsen does not disclose the packaging system having a conveying system with one or more autonomous vehicles or loading a container on an automated vehicle.
Mondini teaches a planar motor conveyor comprising a plurality of magnetic shuttles (Figure 5, planar motor conveyor 3, magnetic shuttles 4) the magnetic shuttles, are autonomous vehicles, moving independently but in a coordinated way and short of any additional limitation can be considered autonomous mobile robots, transport a container to receive objects to be shipped (Figure 5, products 1 on supports 2) from a product delivery station to a plurality of processing stations (Figure 5, paragraph 0134, from unloading station 16 to outfeed station 22 or ejection station 30, third electronic device 29 inspects the product 1 and the support 2 loaded onto each magnetic shuttle 4 and can be considered a sensing station, or if the third electronic device 29 detects an incomplete load back to the outfeed station) as a way to place individual delicate products in containers to avoid damage by the use of manipulators and the individual shuttles can be individually reoriented to receive a product on a container which allows precise positioning even of products with irregular shape or which do not have dimensional stability; allowing regular and repeatable positioning even of products which are fed in an irregular way.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Gabrielsen the teachings of Mondini and replace the transport network for a planar conveyor with magnetic shuttles that allow for individual control for each box to be individually reoriented to receive a product which allows precise positioning even of products with irregular shape or which do not have dimensional stability; allowing regular and repeatable positioning even of products which are fed in an irregular way without the need of robotic or human manipulation; while at the same time allowing to perform the end-of-line box processing operations while the box is onboard the autonomous mobile robot.
Regarding Claims 14 and 15:
Gabrielsen discloses detecting at least one characteristic of the box and updating the route based, at least in part, on the detected characteristic (Paragraphs 0076 and 0077, the void determination station 70 also can include one or more sensors used to determine whether the container is suitable for receipt of dunnage, i.e., whether a non-conforming fault condition exist; upon detecting one of these or other fault conditions where a container falls outside acceptable operating criteria, the controller 26 can automatically route the container to a separate conveyor for special processing by an operator).
Regarding Claim 16:
Gabrielsen discloses wherein the directing step includes instructions to bypass at least one end-of-line box processing station (Paragraphs 0076 to 0078, the void determination station 70 also can include one or more sensors used to determine whether the container is suitable for receipt of dunnage, i.e., whether a non-conforming fault condition exist; upon detecting one of these or other fault conditions where a container falls outside acceptable operating criteria, the controller 26 can automatically route the container to a separate conveyor for special processing by an operator; the controller 24, can also instruct the dispensing stations 14 to allow the container to pass through the dispensing station 14 without inserting dunnage into the container 20, both conditions can be considering as bypassing a box processing station).
Regarding Claim 17:
The modified invention of Gabrielsen discloses the loading step includes erecting a box and placing the box on the conveying system.
As already discussed for Claim 11, Gabrielsen was modified by the teachings of Mondini to replace the conveying system for a planar motor conveyor comprising a plurality of magnetic shuttles that are considered autonomous vehicles to autonomously transport the box.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Gabrielsen the teachings of Mondini and have the box erected and placed on the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding Claim 18:
Gabrielsen discloses that the scanning step includes detecting one or more of a height dimension of the box, a width dimension of the box, a depth dimension of the box, a height dimension of one or more objects in the box, nonconformant characteristics of the box, and a void volume of the box (Figure 3, void determination device 70, Paragraph 0057, 0062, height sensor 82 for providing an output representative of a height of a container 20, a width sensor 84 for providing an output representative of a width of the container 20, a separate sensor can be provided to measure the length of the container).
Regarding Claim 19:
Gabrielsen discloses that the scanning step is repeated after the box is transported to at least one end-of-line box processing station (Paragraph 0049, sensors can be used to determine when a container has left a zone of the packaging system).
Regarding Claim 20:
Gabrielsen discloses a step of transporting the box to multiple end-of-line box processing stations (Figure 3 shows a package 20 being transported towards dunnage dispensing stations 14 and container closing station 102).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. .
The Applicant argues that:
the ordinary skilled person looking to modify Gabrielson's dunnage-dispensing packaging system would not even consider Mondini because meat needing to be packaged is not placed in a box with dunnage, and Mondini fails to address a problem in Gabrielson's dunnage-dispensing packaging system.
The Examiner has to disagree because Mondini was not used for the teaching of filling boxes with dunnage, just for the use of planar conveyors as replacement for a regular transport network of Gabrielsen.
The Applicant also argues that:
Even if Mondini were considered, Mondini does not teach the claimed autonomous vehicle or autonomous mobile robot. Mondini's magnetic shuttles are components of a planar motor conveyor. They are driven by, constrained to, and dependent on the planar motor conveyor. The planar motor conveyor may allow magnetic shuttles to move in multiple directions across its surface, the magnetic shuttles cannot travel beyond the boundaries of the conveyor. They do not autonomously navigate through a facility, choose among travel paths, or travel to selected end-of-line box processing stations in the manner required by the claims.
In the claimed system, the controller selectively directs the autonomous vehicle, based at least in part on sensor information, to autonomously transport the box from the product delivery station to selected end-of-line box processing stations. As a result, if a box does not need to visit a particular processing station, the autonomous vehicle can be directed to follow a path around the processing station.
Mondini does not cure this deficiency. Mondini's magnetic shuttles remain part of a planar motor conveyor and are used for precise food-product positioning. Mondini does not teach using post box-loading characteristic information to direct an autonomous vehicle to selected processing stations. Nor does Mondini teach using such information to cause an autonomous vehicle to bypass stations or to choose among remote processing stations.
Again, the Examiner has to disagree, first the “autonomy of the claimed “autonomous vehicles” is not complete in the way that they don’t “choose among travel paths” being argued and they are not even claimed to do so; they are directed by the controller that is “configured to, based, at least in part, on information from the sensor, selectively direct the autonomous vehicle to autonomously transport the box from the product delivery station to other selected ones of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations”, while even though it is not claimed, the magnetic shuttles are know for obstacle avoidance and optimization of routing. The fact that “the magnetic shuttles cannot travel beyond the boundaries of the conveyor” is basically irrelevant. Same as any other “autonomous vehicle” the travel area has to be defined in some way. The Claim does not include limitations regarding travel paths, Mondini does not have to teach “post box-loading characteristic information to direct an autonomous vehicle to selected processing stations” because it is not claimed, the functions of controlling the route of the conveyor are already discussed by Gabrielsen, and surely the planar conveyor of Mondini includes a controller for the magnetic shuttles that can be used the exact same way and more.
The fact that “the magnetic shuttles are used for precise food-product positioning” does not mean that they can’t be used for anything else.
The Applicant also argues that:
The Examiner observes that Mondini's magnetic shuttles allow individual control, reorientation, and precise positioning of irregular or dimensionally unstable products without robotic or human manipulation. But the magnetic shuttles are limited to travel on a predefined path. If the ordinary skilled person were to modify Gabrielson's packaging network based on Mondini's teaching of using controllable magnetic shuttles, the magnetic shuttle would simply be placed on the paths already defined in Gabrielson's system. But it is not clear why the skilled person would do so.
Again, the Examiner has to disagree with the arguments; the magnetic shuttles are not limited to travel on a predefined path, and having the capacity for individual control, reorientation, and precise positioning of the boxes when placing objects that can be irregular or dimensionally unstable actually is interesting, the same thing applies to placing dunnage inside those boxes, the shuttle can be moved to allow easy spreading of the dunnage around the object in the bag.
The Examiner notes that many of the arguments seem to be directed toward features not claimed and to the alleged “non obviousness” of using the planar conveyor of Mondini for the invention of Gabrielsen, but fails to notice that Gabrielsen just mentions a “conveyor” but is not specific about the kind of conveyor. Mondini is just teaching a particular kind of conveyor that has some advantages, such as being possible to control orientation, route and speed of each shuttle individually and in a continuous way, so it would be obvious to use it as the conveyor for Gabrielsen.
Inclusion of the non-claimed features, as long as they have support in the specification would probably result in overcoming the art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular a proper rejection of Claim 11 can be made with only Mondini (US 2024/0051695), Carlson (US 2011/0016833) and Cheich (US 2015/0210418) teach relevant packaging systems, while Nanda (US 2019/0025852) and Hance (US 9827683) teach automated vehicles transporting boxes on packaging stations.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO R FERRERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-7:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDUARDO R FERRERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights